KASHAPPA Vs. HANUMANTRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenants revision petition against the order passed by the Ditrict Judge, Bijapur, in HLR Appeal No.255 of 1972 affirming the order passed by the Munsiff, Mudhol in RRC. No.40 of 1972.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed an application under S.42 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 for recovery of rent for the year 1970-71. The learned Munsiff parsed an ex parte order against the petitioners for payment of Rs.1,865-72P. being the balance of rent due in respect of lands survey Nos.87, 88/1, 89 and 90/1 of Budni PM village in Modhul taluka for the year 1970-71. The petitioners challenged the said order in HLR. Appeal No.255 of 1972 in the Court of 2the District Judge, Bijapur. It appears that the petitioners had also made an application in the Court of first instance for setting aside the ex parte order. That application was dismissed during the pendency of the appeal. The learned District Judge has taken the view that as the petitioers' application for setting aside the ex parte order has been dismissed by the Court of first instance, he cannot go into the merits of the appeal. Shri S. K. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that this view of the learned District Judge is erroneous. It is clear from the perusal of the grounds of appeal that the only contentions raised by the petitioners are in regard to the merits of the case,. There is not a single ground raised in the appeal memo complaining about the action taken by the Court of first instance in proceeding against the petitioners ex parte. Therefore, the question as to whether the petitioners could avail themselves of the alternate remedies for getting rid of the ex parte order did not arise in this case. The petitioners Were, in the appeal filed by diem, entitled to contend that the decree on the basis of the material placed ia not proper. The learned District Judge could not have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the application of the petitioners for setting aside the ex parte order has been rejected by the Court of first instance.

(3.) For the reasons staged above, this revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the learned District Judge is set aside and the case is remitted back to him for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.